Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

119 views

Skip to first unread message

Jun 12, 2022, 3:28:53â€¯PM6/12/22

to

In popular descriptions of quantum teleportation I see time and again

that it is explained by spooky action at a distance which is also

simultaneous.

Now I know from relativity that if the action is simultaneous in one

frame the effect appears _before_ the cause in other frames.

If I am going to believe in time reversal for one frame it is no big

step for me to believe in time reversal for all frames, the effect

occurring in the past light cone of the cause.

If you explain it that way you can get away with spooky action at a

distance.

any comments?

Chris

that it is explained by spooky action at a distance which is also

simultaneous.

Now I know from relativity that if the action is simultaneous in one

frame the effect appears _before_ the cause in other frames.

If I am going to believe in time reversal for one frame it is no big

step for me to believe in time reversal for all frames, the effect

occurring in the past light cone of the cause.

If you explain it that way you can get away with spooky action at a

distance.

any comments?

Chris

Jun 13, 2022, 7:39:14â€¯AM6/13/22

to

with the fact that these processes cannot be used to send information

faster than light, is a good reason to think that there is no action at

a distance, spooky or otherwise. In particular, the time reversal

immediately raises the question of who is the actor, and who the actee[*]

Quantum mechanics tells us what results we'll get. It doesn't say

anything about how it works, and popular science descriptions are

usually just misleading.

Sylvia.

[*] Spell check says that this isn't a word, but what does it know?

Jun 13, 2022, 8:28:24â€¯AM6/13/22

to

On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 21:28:53 UTC+2, Chris Jacobs wrote:

> In popular descriptions of quantum teleportation I see time and again

> that it is explained by spooky action at a distance which is also

> simultaneous.

There is something "spooky" about entanglement for other (intrinsic)
> In popular descriptions of quantum teleportation I see time and again

> that it is explained by spooky action at a distance which is also

> simultaneous.

reasons, but it does not violate relativity since no information is

transferred. Indeed, quantum teleportation, beside entangled particles,

needs a classical channel to transmit classical information from the

origin site to the destination site, where that information is needed to

reconstruct the state. As WP puts it:

<< However, in addition to the quantum channel, a traditional channel

must also be used to accompany a qubit to "preserve" the quantum

information. When the change measurement between the original qubit

and the entangled particle is made, the measurement result must be

carried by a traditional channel so that the quantum information can be

reconstructed and the receiver can get the original information. >>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation>

Julio

Jun 14, 2022, 3:38:01â€¯AM6/14/22

to

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 2:28:53 PM UTC-5, Chris Jacobs wrote:

> ...

> Chris

Chris,

I don't believe that is quite correct. Events that are on each others light

cone are effectively simultaneous (the metric separation is zero), and

that is true for all observers. It is only spatially separated events that

have an ambiguous time sequence, and temporally separated events

have an ambiguous spatial sequence.

Rich L.

> ...

> Now I know from relativity that if the action is simultaneous in one

> frame the effect appears _before_ the cause in other frames.

> ...
> frame the effect appears _before_ the cause in other frames.

> Chris

Chris,

I don't believe that is quite correct. Events that are on each others light

cone are effectively simultaneous (the metric separation is zero), and

that is true for all observers. It is only spatially separated events that

have an ambiguous time sequence, and temporally separated events

have an ambiguous spatial sequence.

Rich L.

Jun 14, 2022, 11:15:18â€¯AM6/14/22

to

On 6/13/22 10:43 AM, Richard Livingston wrote:

> Events that are on each others light cone are effectively

> simultaneous (the metric separation is zero), and that is true for

> all observers.

Yes, for such pairs of events the metric separation is zero, and that
> Events that are on each others light cone are effectively

> simultaneous (the metric separation is zero), and that is true for

> all observers.

applies for all observers (it is really independent of observer and

coordinates).

But that is not at all what "simultaneous" means. Rather, that is a

lightlike interval.

Simultaneous means at the same time, and that is a coordinate-dependent

concept (because a coordinate system defines what one means by "time")

-- for a given coordinate system all events with the same value of the

time coordinate are simultaneous with each other. In an inertial

coordinate system, for each such value the locus of events is

necessarily a 3-D spacelike hypersurface. In general, for different

coordinate systems these loci are completely different.

Tom Roberts

Jun 14, 2022, 3:56:49â€¯PM6/14/22

to

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 6:39:14 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:

> The very fact that we can see this time reversal in the theory, together

> with the fact that these processes cannot be used to send information

> faster than light, is a good reason to think that there is no action at

> a distance, spooky or otherwise. In particular, the time reversal

> immediately raises the question of who is the actor, and who the actee[*]

I don't like the term "spooky action at a distance". It implies something
> The very fact that we can see this time reversal in the theory, together

> with the fact that these processes cannot be used to send information

> faster than light, is a good reason to think that there is no action at

> a distance, spooky or otherwise. In particular, the time reversal

> immediately raises the question of who is the actor, and who the actee[*]

non-sensical, yet there is all this evidence of something happening

that is very different from our normal macroscopic based intuition.

> Quantum mechanics tells us what results we'll get. It doesn't say

> anything about how it works, and popular science descriptions are

> usually just misleading.

for this behavior, and I agree that the popular descriptions are

little or no help. But I do think that this is something worth thinking

about in order to get a deeper understanding, perhaps beyond QM.

I've been studying QM since the early 1970's, and it is only in the last

decade or so that there has been much interest in the "interpretation"

of QM and what it implies about the mechanisms of particle

propagation. I think this is long over due.

> Sylvia.

>

> [*] Spell check says that this isn't a word, but what does it know?

Rich L.

Jun 15, 2022, 2:18:10â€¯AM6/15/22

to

[Cross-posted: please follow-up as appropriate.]

On 14/06/2022 17:15, Tom Roberts wrote:

> Simultaneous means at the same time, and that is a coordinate-dependent

> concept (because a coordinate system defines what one means by "time")

> -- for a given coordinate system all events with the same value of the

> time coordinate are simultaneous with each other.

No, that is fundamentally upside down:

The "time" we experience is *proper* time, which is the (physical) time

clocks and everything tick *locally* (i.e. at and per themselves), and

is *universally* (an invariant of the geometry and) one and the same for

every observer, clocks and everything, i.e. not even restricted to

inertial motion or observers. So, it is *proper* time that is

(physical) "time" and, not per chance, modulo more speculative research

on time itself, it is the primary parameter of any dynamical system.

OTOH, coordinate-time is an artefact of coordinate systems, i.e. of a

choice of reference frame, and it is a *relative* notion that introduces

distortions such as time dilation and length contraction for the

trajectory of any particle that is not simply at rest in that frame. It

is indeed overall "just" related to *simultaneity*, i.e. a class of

procedures to *measure* things (distances, speeds, etc.) that are not

local. But, indeed, as we should very well know and never forget: time

dilation is not actually happening on board that ship...

Julio

On 14/06/2022 17:15, Tom Roberts wrote:

> Simultaneous means at the same time, and that is a coordinate-dependent

> concept (because a coordinate system defines what one means by "time")

> -- for a given coordinate system all events with the same value of the

> time coordinate are simultaneous with each other.

The "time" we experience is *proper* time, which is the (physical) time

clocks and everything tick *locally* (i.e. at and per themselves), and

is *universally* (an invariant of the geometry and) one and the same for

every observer, clocks and everything, i.e. not even restricted to

inertial motion or observers. So, it is *proper* time that is

(physical) "time" and, not per chance, modulo more speculative research

on time itself, it is the primary parameter of any dynamical system.

OTOH, coordinate-time is an artefact of coordinate systems, i.e. of a

choice of reference frame, and it is a *relative* notion that introduces

distortions such as time dilation and length contraction for the

trajectory of any particle that is not simply at rest in that frame. It

is indeed overall "just" related to *simultaneity*, i.e. a class of

procedures to *measure* things (distances, speeds, etc.) that are not

local. But, indeed, as we should very well know and never forget: time

dilation is not actually happening on board that ship...

Julio

Jun 16, 2022, 3:26:54â€¯AM6/16/22

to

that word. The idea I did not state clearly enough is that *perhaps*

from the point of view of the physics of causality, that two events with

zero metric separation should be considered simultaneous and co-located.

I realize that this is not a standard concept in current physics, and I

still have some doubts about it, but applying this concept to

entanglement experiments would relieve much of the confusion about how

such entangled results can happen without invoking faster than light

communication.

Rich L.

Jun 16, 2022, 3:27:24â€¯AM6/16/22

to

On 6/15/22 1:18 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> On 14/06/2022 17:15, Tom Roberts wrote:

>> Simultaneous means at the same time, and that is a

>> coordinate-dependent concept (because a coordinate system defines

>> what one means by "time") -- for a given coordinate system all

>> events with the same value of the time coordinate are simultaneous

>> with each other.

>

> No, that is fundamentally upside down:

No, it is not. It is what these words mean, and what is required for
> On 14/06/2022 17:15, Tom Roberts wrote:

>> Simultaneous means at the same time, and that is a

>> coordinate-dependent concept (because a coordinate system defines

>> what one means by "time") -- for a given coordinate system all

>> events with the same value of the time coordinate are simultaneous

>> with each other.

>

> No, that is fundamentally upside down:

determining simultaneity for spatially-separated objects. That is what

this (sub-)thread was about.

> The "time" we experience is *proper* time, which is the (physical)

> time clocks and everything tick *locally* (i.e. at and per

> themselves), and is *universally* (an invariant of the geometry and)

"universal". Yes, the proper time of a given observer or object is

independent of coordinates (aka invariant). But it is not, and cannot

be, "universal" in the usual sense of the word: applying to everything

-- it only applies to the specific observer, object, of clock in

question.

> one and the same for every observer, clocks and everything,

independent of the proper time for other observers, objects, or clocks.

Proper time is a property of a worldline, separate for each worldline.

> i.e. not even restricted to inertial motion or observers.

> So, it is *proper* time that is (physical) "time" and, not per

> chance, modulo more speculative research on time itself, it is the

> primary parameter of any dynamical system.

relativistic equation of motion for a given object refers to its proper

time. The ticking of any clock displays its proper time.

But the subject was simultaneity, for objects separated spatially. For

that, the proper time of any object is useless -- a given observer,

object, or clock can only apply its proper time to events located along

its worldline, which does not include objects separated spatially.

For spatially separated objects, one must DEFINE what one means by

"simultaneous", and that means setting up a coordinate system. As I

said.

> OTOH, coordinate-time is an artefact of coordinate systems, i.e. of

> a choice of reference frame, and it is a *relative* notion

is of course only one aspect of a coordinate system.)

> that introduces distortions such as time dilation and length

> contraction for the trajectory of any particle that is not simply at

> rest in that frame.

dilation and length contraction" -- they are generated by certain

measurement procedures applied to objects moving relative to an inertial

coordinate system.

Tom Roberts

Jun 16, 2022, 3:27:54â€¯AM6/16/22

to

On 15-June-22 5:56 am, Richard Livingston wrote:

> You are correct, of course, that QM does not offer any mechanism

> for this behavior, and I agree that the popular descriptions are

> little or no help. But I do think that this is something worth thinking

> about in order to get a deeper understanding, perhaps beyond QM.

> I've been studying QM since the early 1970's, and it is only in the last

> decade or so that there has been much interest in the "interpretation"

> of QM and what it implies about the mechanisms of particle

> propagation. I think this is long over due.

>

Part of the problem is that the thinking can not go much beyond pure
> You are correct, of course, that QM does not offer any mechanism

> for this behavior, and I agree that the popular descriptions are

> little or no help. But I do think that this is something worth thinking

> about in order to get a deeper understanding, perhaps beyond QM.

> I've been studying QM since the early 1970's, and it is only in the last

> decade or so that there has been much interest in the "interpretation"

> of QM and what it implies about the mechanisms of particle

> propagation. I think this is long over due.

>

speculation until and unless we get experimental results that are either

inconsistent with QM, or are consistent with it, but not fully described

by it, in the latter case indicating that QM is incomplete.

Sylvia.

Jun 19, 2022, 10:50:34â€¯AM6/19/22

to

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 2:27:54 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:

...

(except by a very few) about what quantum mechanics implies about our

concepts of time and causality, nor how the Born Rule works. There are

two ways to discover deeper theories about such things. One is by an

experiment that gives an unexpected result (e.g. the Lamb shift) that

inspires a theory. The other is a speculation that permits an experimental

test. (And then there are the speculations that are inherently untestable,

e.g. the so called many worlds interpretation of QM.)

I suspect out current impasse in physics is due to an unexamined assumption

in our theory. While it would be nice for an experiment to lead us in that

direction, until then we can speculate and try to test those ideas. But first

we have to admit that there is something that needs a deeper understanding.

Rich L.

...

> Part of the problem is that the thinking can not go much beyond pure

> speculation until and unless we get experimental results that are either

> inconsistent with QM, or are consistent with it, but not fully described

> by it, in the latter case indicating that QM is incomplete.

>

> Sylvia.

Agreed, but part of the problem has been that there has been little thinking
> speculation until and unless we get experimental results that are either

> inconsistent with QM, or are consistent with it, but not fully described

> by it, in the latter case indicating that QM is incomplete.

>

> Sylvia.

(except by a very few) about what quantum mechanics implies about our

concepts of time and causality, nor how the Born Rule works. There are

two ways to discover deeper theories about such things. One is by an

experiment that gives an unexpected result (e.g. the Lamb shift) that

inspires a theory. The other is a speculation that permits an experimental

test. (And then there are the speculations that are inherently untestable,

e.g. the so called many worlds interpretation of QM.)

I suspect out current impasse in physics is due to an unexamined assumption

in our theory. While it would be nice for an experiment to lead us in that

direction, until then we can speculate and try to test those ideas. But first

we have to admit that there is something that needs a deeper understanding.

Rich L.

Jun 20, 2022, 4:05:28â€¯AM6/20/22

to

mechanics (QM) that exists. Unless there are infinite layers of

mechanism, there must be a point at which it just does what it does,

with no more explanation being possible.

Perhaps QM has reached the bottom level, and that's just how the

universe is.

Sylvia.

Jun 20, 2022, 9:51:52â€¯AM6/20/22

to

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:05:28 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:

> ...

> ...

> Still, we don't actually know that there is anything underneath quantum

> mechanics (QM) that exists. Unless there are infinite layers of

> mechanism, there must be a point at which it just does what it does,

> with no more explanation being possible.

>

> Perhaps QM has reached the bottom level, and that's just how the

> universe is.

>

> Sylvia.

That is certainly a possibility, but I'd argue that there must still be
> mechanics (QM) that exists. Unless there are infinite layers of

> mechanism, there must be a point at which it just does what it does,

> with no more explanation being possible.

>

> Perhaps QM has reached the bottom level, and that's just how the

> universe is.

>

> Sylvia.

some deeper layers that we should be curious about. For example, in

something like the two slit experiment, how does the photon end up in

only one spot always, as opposed to only statistically on average one

spot? For a given photon we calculate a wave function that can be used

to predict the probability distribution of photon destinations. If the

wave function represents some aspect of something real, then why don't

we sometimes see two photons arriving in different places? (NOTE: I'm

not suggesting that the wave function IS a real thing, it is a

mathematical object that we use to calculate probabilities. Rather I'm

suggesting that the wave function appears to capture some aspect of

something that is real.)

Now one way around that question is to say that the photon DOES follow

one path, and thus does end up in one location. But that suggests that

there is some mechanism that ensures that the photon is guided so that

it ends up, after many trials, reproducing the probability distribution.

This is the pilot wave interpretation of QM.

But even this has a problem with entanglement experiments and Bells

Inequality. It appears that the results of a measurement at one

location depends on a measurement at another spatially separated

location. This coordination of results is very hard to understand if we

still believe special relativity and locality. This reasoning is why I

strongly suspect that there is a deeper mechanism that we would like to

understand.

Of course this deeper mechanism, if it exists, might be too subtle for

us to discern experimentally. In that case, as I believe you've

indicated, this level is not scientifically accessible. But there are

enough hints that our physics is not complete yet that I'm hopeful that

we can still dig a little bit deeper.

Rich L.

Jun 22, 2022, 11:44:05â€¯AM6/22/22

to

Op donderdag 16 juni 2022 om 09:27:24 UTC+2 schreef Tom Roberts:

of events take place and that all these events are happening simultaneous.

Each of these events can be linked to a spatially-separated object.

This physical implies that none of these events can influence any

of the other events directly.

You can only claim that the primary cause of these events lies in the past,

and that the results of these events (what happens next) can only influence

each other in the future.

The reason why I use this approach is that this is the easiest way

to simulate the evolution of our galaxy. That means one coordinate system

and one clock.

> > one and the same for every observer, clocks and everything,

> No. Each observer, object, or clock's proper time is completely

> independent of the proper time for other observers, objects, or clocks.

Suppose there exists a same type of civilisation, like ours, near another

star at a planet which resembles ours. Suppose we both want to predict

the future of our galaxy. Is that possible?

IMO the biggest problem is time keeping and to try to synchronise our clocks

with their clocks.

> But the subject was simultaneity, for objects separated spatially. For

> that, the proper time of any object is useless -- a given observer,

> object, or clock can only apply its proper time to events located along

> its worldline, which does not include objects separated spatially.

IMO to have two have observers, each with their own coordinate system

each considering their system at rest, creates havoc.

> > OTOH, coordinate-time is an artefact of coordinate systems, i.e. of

> > a choice of reference frame, and it is a *relative* notion

> Yes. Necessarily so. "Simultaneous" is a relative concept. (Simultaneity

> is of course only one aspect of a coordinate system.)

I don't understand what you mean with relative concept.

My understanding is that each observer, at the origin of his coordination

system, with his clock, based on his observations of 10 events, will have

different ideas which events are simultaneous or not.

There could also be a third observer. Which one is correct?

> The coordinate system does not induce "time

> dilation and length contraction" -- they are generated by certain

> measurement procedures applied to objects moving relative to an inertial

> coordinate system.

The problem starts when objects are linked to different coordinate systems

moving relative to each other and using their own clocks.

Nicolaas Vroom

https://www.nicvroom.be

> On 6/15/22 1:18 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> > On 14/06/2022 17:15, Tom Roberts wrote:

> >> Simultaneous means at the same time, and that is a

> >> coordinate-dependent concept (because a coordinate system defines

> >> what one means by "time") -- for a given coordinate system all

> >> events with the same value of the time coordinate are simultaneous

> >> with each other.

> >

> > No, that is fundamentally upside down:

> No, it is not. It is what these words mean, and what is required for

> determining simultaneity for spatially-separated objects.

IMO simultaneity means that at any moment in the universe millions
> > On 14/06/2022 17:15, Tom Roberts wrote:

> >> Simultaneous means at the same time, and that is a

> >> coordinate-dependent concept (because a coordinate system defines

> >> what one means by "time") -- for a given coordinate system all

> >> events with the same value of the time coordinate are simultaneous

> >> with each other.

> >

> > No, that is fundamentally upside down:

> No, it is not. It is what these words mean, and what is required for

> determining simultaneity for spatially-separated objects.

of events take place and that all these events are happening simultaneous.

Each of these events can be linked to a spatially-separated object.

This physical implies that none of these events can influence any

of the other events directly.

You can only claim that the primary cause of these events lies in the past,

and that the results of these events (what happens next) can only influence

each other in the future.

The reason why I use this approach is that this is the easiest way

to simulate the evolution of our galaxy. That means one coordinate system

and one clock.

> > one and the same for every observer, clocks and everything,

> No. Each observer, object, or clock's proper time is completely

> independent of the proper time for other observers, objects, or clocks.

star at a planet which resembles ours. Suppose we both want to predict

the future of our galaxy. Is that possible?

IMO the biggest problem is time keeping and to try to synchronise our clocks

with their clocks.

> But the subject was simultaneity, for objects separated spatially. For

> that, the proper time of any object is useless -- a given observer,

> object, or clock can only apply its proper time to events located along

> its worldline, which does not include objects separated spatially.

each considering their system at rest, creates havoc.

> > OTOH, coordinate-time is an artefact of coordinate systems, i.e. of

> > a choice of reference frame, and it is a *relative* notion

> Yes. Necessarily so. "Simultaneous" is a relative concept. (Simultaneity

> is of course only one aspect of a coordinate system.)

My understanding is that each observer, at the origin of his coordination

system, with his clock, based on his observations of 10 events, will have

different ideas which events are simultaneous or not.

There could also be a third observer. Which one is correct?

> The coordinate system does not induce "time

> dilation and length contraction" -- they are generated by certain

> measurement procedures applied to objects moving relative to an inertial

> coordinate system.

moving relative to each other and using their own clocks.

Nicolaas Vroom

https://www.nicvroom.be

Jun 24, 2022, 6:07:06â€¯AM6/24/22

to

Op maandag 20 juni 2022 om 15:51:52 UTC+2 schreef richali...@gmail.com:

https://physicsworld.com/a/do-atoms-going-through-a-double-slit-know-if-they-are-being-observed/#:~:text=In%20the%20famous%20double%2Dslit,no%20interference%20will%20be%20seen.

Google search: double slit experiment with photons

In the text we can read:

In the famous double-slit experiment, single particles, such as photons,

pass one at a time through a screen containing two slits. If either path

is monitored, a photon seemingly passes through one slit or the other,

and no interference will be seen.

My understanding is that the double-slit experiment is a physical

experiment and the explanation belongs to the physical realm. Secondly

in order to understand you should try to make small modifications to

this experiment. Thirdly if you 'fully' understand the experiment you

can also try to describe certain details mathematically. Fourth this

type of experiments can never be done with a thought experiment.

In the double-slit experiment the 'interference' patern changes

drastically if both slits are used or are open versus if only slit is

used. It is very important that as part of each experiment nothing

should be changed with the photon emitting device. It is very important

to perform the following experiment. Start with a double slit experiment

with both slits open and observe an interference pattern. Next keep the

left slit at position and move the right slit slightly towards the

right. This is technical maybe only possible with a new device were the

distance between the two slits is slightly larger. Next repeat this,

each time making the distance slightly larger untill there is no

interference pattern and what is observed resembles the one slit

experiment. What that means is that the observer is no active part of

the outcome of the experiment. What that also means that the one photon

has a certain size, and that when the distance between the two slits is

small, a part of the one photon goes through one slit and the other part

through the other slit and thereafter both parts interfer with each

other.

> For a given photon we calculate a wave function that can be used

> to predict the probability distribution of photon destinations.

The concept of a wave function is not necessary to explain this

behaviour.

> But even this has a problem with entanglement experiments and Bells

> Inequality.

Also to explain entanglement lies in the physical realm. Entanglement is

the fact that there exists a certain correlation between the outcome of

a certain experiment. For example: As part of a collision experiment two

photons are detected at two detectors and the outcome is correlated.

That means when the 'polarization direction' of one photon at detector 1

is +x the 'polarization direction' of the other photon at detector 2 is

-x. It is very important that this experiment is performed 1000 times.

The outcome of detector 1 is random. That means the outcome of detector

1 can be : +x, +x, -x, +x, -x, -x, -x, +x In that case the outcome of

detector 2 is ..: -x, -x, +x, -x, +x, +x, +x, -x By preference the

distance between the detectors and the point of the collision should be

the same, that means the measurements are performed simultaneous.

What does this physical means. It means that the direction of

polarization is already established at the point of collision and has

nothing to do where and when the polarization is measured. Specific at

the point of collision the correlation is established. What is true that

you know if one detector detects a +x that the other detector will

detect a -x. However and that is important there exists no physical link

between both measurements. It's like placing two of your shoes, in one

box each. Next you give these two boxes to a friend, with two stickers

to get packaged and shipped to two family members. When one of the

family members calls you and tells that she has received your left shoe,

than you know that the other family member sooner or later will receive

your right shoe. That is all. That is all what entanglement physical

means.

> But there are enough hints that our physics is not complete yet that I'm

> hopeful that we can still dig a little bit deeper.

I'm pretty sure that we don't understand all the details of the physical

reality. The main step to increase our understanding is by performing

more accurate experiments.

Nicolaas Vroom

https://www.nicvroom.be/

> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:05:28 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:

> For example, in

> something like the two slit experiment, how does the photon end up in

> only one spot always, as opposed to only statistically on average one

> spot?

For the best description of this problem see this link:
> For example, in

> something like the two slit experiment, how does the photon end up in

> only one spot always, as opposed to only statistically on average one

> spot?

https://physicsworld.com/a/do-atoms-going-through-a-double-slit-know-if-they-are-being-observed/#:~:text=In%20the%20famous%20double%2Dslit,no%20interference%20will%20be%20seen.

Google search: double slit experiment with photons

In the text we can read:

In the famous double-slit experiment, single particles, such as photons,

pass one at a time through a screen containing two slits. If either path

is monitored, a photon seemingly passes through one slit or the other,

and no interference will be seen.

My understanding is that the double-slit experiment is a physical

experiment and the explanation belongs to the physical realm. Secondly

in order to understand you should try to make small modifications to

this experiment. Thirdly if you 'fully' understand the experiment you

can also try to describe certain details mathematically. Fourth this

type of experiments can never be done with a thought experiment.

In the double-slit experiment the 'interference' patern changes

drastically if both slits are used or are open versus if only slit is

used. It is very important that as part of each experiment nothing

should be changed with the photon emitting device. It is very important

to perform the following experiment. Start with a double slit experiment

with both slits open and observe an interference pattern. Next keep the

left slit at position and move the right slit slightly towards the

right. This is technical maybe only possible with a new device were the

distance between the two slits is slightly larger. Next repeat this,

each time making the distance slightly larger untill there is no

interference pattern and what is observed resembles the one slit

experiment. What that means is that the observer is no active part of

the outcome of the experiment. What that also means that the one photon

has a certain size, and that when the distance between the two slits is

small, a part of the one photon goes through one slit and the other part

through the other slit and thereafter both parts interfer with each

other.

> For a given photon we calculate a wave function that can be used

> to predict the probability distribution of photon destinations.

behaviour.

> But even this has a problem with entanglement experiments and Bells

> Inequality.

the fact that there exists a certain correlation between the outcome of

a certain experiment. For example: As part of a collision experiment two

photons are detected at two detectors and the outcome is correlated.

That means when the 'polarization direction' of one photon at detector 1

is +x the 'polarization direction' of the other photon at detector 2 is

-x. It is very important that this experiment is performed 1000 times.

The outcome of detector 1 is random. That means the outcome of detector

1 can be : +x, +x, -x, +x, -x, -x, -x, +x In that case the outcome of

detector 2 is ..: -x, -x, +x, -x, +x, +x, +x, -x By preference the

distance between the detectors and the point of the collision should be

the same, that means the measurements are performed simultaneous.

What does this physical means. It means that the direction of

polarization is already established at the point of collision and has

nothing to do where and when the polarization is measured. Specific at

the point of collision the correlation is established. What is true that

you know if one detector detects a +x that the other detector will

detect a -x. However and that is important there exists no physical link

between both measurements. It's like placing two of your shoes, in one

box each. Next you give these two boxes to a friend, with two stickers

to get packaged and shipped to two family members. When one of the

family members calls you and tells that she has received your left shoe,

than you know that the other family member sooner or later will receive

your right shoe. That is all. That is all what entanglement physical

means.

> But there are enough hints that our physics is not complete yet that I'm

> hopeful that we can still dig a little bit deeper.

reality. The main step to increase our understanding is by performing

more accurate experiments.

Nicolaas Vroom

https://www.nicvroom.be/

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu